wutbrodo

46 ms·

451.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
That's driven by how many people will watch it (demonstrably, very many, in Chappelle's case), not by the magnitude of offense taken by some number of people. The proportion of people not watching a show will always be far higher
452.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> If you're using Windows 11 Home, you must have both an Internet connection and a Microsoft account to run Windows 11 at all. No, Internet, no Microsoft account, no Windows 11. You can't set up a local user account or use your
453.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Dang, that's a bummer to hear. I used to do a pretty thorough dive into the whole market (including iPhones) every time I needed to switch phones, but just kept ending up buying the latest Galaxy S, sometimes by a hair. This got me f
454.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
I switched to Google Voice a decade ago, and it took me years to realize the degree to which everyone else was getting spammed with robocalls. I probably get one a month. I know they don't have Google's technical chops, but I won
455.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
I've used a credit card at dispensaries many times. Details in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28829949
456.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> Yet you can't use a credit card to buy cannabis pretty much anywhere AFAIK. The dispensaries I've been to in LA will generally take credit cards now. They round it up to multiples of 5 and give you change in cash, and I think
457.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
I agree with 100% of this except for Klein. He and Noah Smith baffle me in that they seem to be smart but are somehow constantly, extremely wrong, and consistently engage with others in intellectually dishonest ways. It's super bizarre
458.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
That axis doesn't say they're better at factual reporting, at least not in the top couple buckets. Look at the category that the Atlantic and the NYT are in: it says "mix of fact reporting and analysis". That says nothin
459.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
IMO NPR isn't a particularly good quality source. I'd prob put it below even the NYT, and far below, say, The Atlantic
460.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
That's certainly possible, but only if she felt like she didn't need the populist-left energy anymore (which is plausible).
461.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> All we need is a change in party running the White House to torpedo our own ideas. See also: TPP. TPP was opposed by both major-party candidates by the time of the general election; Hillary Clinton flip-flopped her position on it to pa
462.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Yea, it's a little difficult to describe, but it's more than just pure speed, it's mental load. Vim let's me integrate the entire development process into a single flow. This is true fractally: from typing all the way t
463.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Surely you'd agree that most people _do_ recognize this distinction though? And that's what relevant to whether the would be a furor, not your personal view on what makes ads harmful, which is rather idiosyncratic (regardless of w
464.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
I don't think I understand your point. Are those ads, or just entity search? Or are you saying you don't think that the distinction between paid autocomplete results and rich autocomplete results are meaningful?
465.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Yea, I can't even imagine the furor if Chrome were to do this and make it opt-out. Very unexpected from Mozilla, even with my lowered standards of the last half decade.
466.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> If you don’t want to have a conversation about why you deleted WhatsApp, simply say it’s a moral issue, nobody wants to know. Is this really true? I do a smattering of weird/non-conformist things for moral reasons, and people are
467.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
I should be clear. I don't think that there are no levers that Facebook can or should pull here. But that framing contradicts the breathless hysteria and shoddy statistics behind the push that Facebook is _causing_ damage, as opposed
468.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Most people completely have their head in the sand about how utterly awful the average person is. A massive chunk of what people complain about is simply attributable to the fact that people are monsters, and that global connectivity means
469.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
The comment I asked rhe question of said: > the problem is apple. they are (understandably) refusing to ship an up-to-date global python interpreter with macOS Ie the claim is that it's causing a problem for users. I don't have
470.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Oh, sure, it's definitely not a good idea to change what the unqualified python binary refers to. But I interpreted "refusing to ship an up-to-date global python interpreter with macOS" as meaning that Python3 isn't ship
471.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
>In college, many of us learn the ethics around experimentation, including the ugly history of experiments performed in secret without ethics boards and without concern for the subjects. You have more faith than I do that this lesson is
472.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
This isn't inherent to voice assistants though (which is what this subthread is about). Siri is a known, particularly poor implementation of a voice assistant. I don't have an Alexa, but I just moved to a city where rainy days com
473.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
I hope this doesn't make Siri's quality even worse, but it seems inevitable.
474.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> semi-educated This is an interesting take, but what a weird modifier to add in here. IMO education level is more or less irrelevant here, but if one had to force it into the equation, it seems to me that his Harvard pedigree, even if h
475.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
How do you figure that web search relies on addiction? This is quite a novel take to me.
476.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> unless you heavily curate your subreddits to low population subs. Isn't this true of any service, at least of a certain size? My Twitter feed is tightly, tightly curated, and even the comment replies to these extremely high-qualit
477.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
> they are (understandably) refusing to ship an up-to-date global python interpreter with macOS What is the understandable reasoning?
478.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Could you clarify what you mean? I don't see anything in this article contradicting what the Tom's Guide article says.
479.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
Presumably because you're too reflexively cynical? There's an option between rabid optimism and wild conspiracy theories, and it's just "mild optimism/pessimism + wait and see"
480.
by wutbrodo 5y ago
That's a good point. I'd guess that it's optimized more for investor/employee attention than the broader market. It's evocative of cool physics and "disruption" instead of the blandly pleasant tone one tak

More ›